PubMed · 13110656
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
1953-10-16. [TELEPAQUE].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13110656/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis are aimed at evaluating the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) following administration of clinically approved ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs) in adults and children, to assess risks in patients with cardiovascular disease and in pregnancy, and to evaluate the effectiveness of emergency management of severe ADRs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PRISMA 2020 systematic review was conducted searching PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and assessed quality. Incidence estimates were pooled when feasible, stratified by age group, contrast agent, and administration route. RESULTS: Seventy-four studies encompassing > 1 million adults and > 36,000 children were included, contributing multiple analytic cohorts to the quantitative synthesis. Severe acute ADRs were extremely rare (6 and 16 cases per 100,000 in adults and children, respectively) and absent following endocavitary administration in children. Non-severe acute ADRs occurred in 11 and 8 cases per 10,000 adults and children, respectively. Delayed reactions were very rare (< 1 case per million in adults). No significant safety differences emerged between UCA products. The incidence of ADRs in patients with cardiovascular disease was analogous to the general population. No ADRs were reported in pregnant women. Standard emergency management was effective in almost all serious cases, though rare fatalities occurred. CONCLUSION: UCAs show an excellent safety profile in adults and children, with very rare severe ADRs and few non-severe, typically self-limiting reactions. Strict adherence to recommended emergency management protocols mitigates the remaining risks, supporting safe use across a broad range of clinical indications. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023432668. KEY POINTS: Question What is the incidence, type, and severity of acute and delayed ADRs associated with clinically approved UCAs across different patient populations? Findings Severe acute adverse reactions are very rare, and non-severe reactions are rare and self-limiting, with no significant safety differences between adults, children, or patients with cardiovascular disease. Clinical relevant UCAs show an excellent safety profile across populations. These findings support their safe clinical use as reliable alternatives to iodine-based and gadolinium-based contrast agents in routine diagnostic imaging.
CONTEXT: Contrast-induced nephropathy is associated with significant economic and clinical consequences, including prolonged hospitalization, the requirement for dialysis, and an increased risk of death. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the current state of evidence for prophylaxis of contrast-induced nephropathy, provide evidence-based recommendations regarding management of high-risk patients undergoing angiographic procedures, and identify new avenues for research. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches of peer-reviewed publications were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database from 1966 to January 2006. Search terms included radio contrast nephropathy, contrast media, acetylcysteine, theophylline, sodium bicarbonate, HMG Co-A reductase inhibitors, ascorbic acid, kidney diseases, renal insufficiency, kidney failure, nephropathy, fenoldopam, diuretics, and saline or half saline. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies of risk factors and randomized controlled trials of prophylaxis strategies for contrast-induced nephropathy that specified a definition of contrast-induced nephropathy or postprocedure creatinine level as an outcome measure. Evidence Synthesis Important patient-related risk factors for contrast-induced nephropathy include chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, older age, anemia, and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Non-patient-related risk factors include high-osmolar contrast, ionic contrast, contrast viscosity, and contrast volume. Practice guidelines recommend obtaining preprocedural serum creatinine levels among patients with renal disease, diabetes, proteinuria, hypertension, gout, or congestive heart failure. Available evidence, largely based on small- to medium-sized trials, supports the use of hydration, bicarbonate, and low volumes of iso- or low-osmolar contrast in patients at risk. N-acetylcysteine or ascorbic acid may be of value in very high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: While several risk factors for contrast-induced nephropathy have been identified, the development of an effective prophylaxis strategy for contrast-induced nephropathy has been limited by our poor understanding of the pathophysiology and the clinical significance of this condition. Future research should focus on correctly identifying higher-risk patients and testing therapies in the setting of large well-powered clinical trials.
Peroperative fluoroscopic visualization of the femoral head in massive obese patient can be enhanced by the administration of intra-articular contrast agent into the hip joint. It provides safe alternative for compromised resolution during the introduction of femoral head screws. We report our experiences with one patient as a technical report and believe that in certain cases this method may be quite helpful.